Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,551   Posts: 1,544,889   Online: 934
      
Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst 123456789 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 85
  1. #41
    Wigwam Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Wilson, NC
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheryl Jacobs
    "A lot of photographers" aren't always my students, however they are always people who know my photography and philosophy and teaching style, so they have the background to understand what I'm saying.
    Fair enough. I can only say I didn't have that information, so my response was based only on what I did know.

    And I can't say that it's a bad thing to tell photographers seeking a personal style to go find themselves. What would that be a bad thing?
    It would be for me. I can't speak for anyone else, but I've never been much into navel-gazing emo, and don't know how to do it, really.

    Because it's vague?
    Because, taken by itself, to me it is meaningless. One might as well ask me to consult my duodenum for advice as ask me to 'go find myself'. I know what is meant by seeking one's personal inner being and vision questing and so on, but it's just not in my nature.

    Because they have to interpret what is meant by it?
    Because I can't interpret what is meant by it. Again, applying this only to myself. I have no doubt your students have a different take on it.

    Because I didn't give them specific steps to follow to get there?
    Given what I now know of your situation and that of your students and photographic aquaintances, I would not suggest that you'd need to give them specific steps. I mean no harm or insult.
    Best,

    Wiggy

    Note to Self: Tse-Tse Fly - No Antidote

  2. #42
    reellis67's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Central Florida
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    1,887
    Images
    13
    Instead of saying Clyde has a unique style (I think his style is quite similar to Ansel's, but that's just an opinion) I think it would be better to tell how he lost his son and found relief through his photography. Then, instead of seeing somone who takes a certain type of photo, the kids may begin to see that strong emotions drive the creative force.

    - Randy

  3. #43
    Wigwam Jones's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Wilson, NC
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    303
    Quote Originally Posted by Cheryl Jacobs
    It is illogical, in my opinion, to expect to figure out what's in your heart by looking at other peoples' technique.
    While I find it illogical to ignore the technique of others when through close examination of the work of others, one may learn what resonates in one's own heart and what does not.

    Just my 2 cents, I'll be happy to let it go now.
    Best,

    Wiggy

    Note to Self: Tse-Tse Fly - No Antidote

  4. #44
    billschwab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Meeshagin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,749
    Images
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Wigwam Jones
    Many of us are gratified when we able to provide enjoyment to others.
    True, but if that is the only reason you are doing this, it won't get you far. For me, any pleasure derived by the viewer of my work is bonus. However, it is not made for them.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wigwam Jones
    ... I find many photographers who have some concern with how their photographs make others feel more accessible.
    How? I don't get this at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by Wigwam Jones
    ... does a storyteller tell stories to make themselves happy?
    I certainly hope so! If not, I am guessing it isn't going to be a story I want to hear.

    I understand your point of obtaining pleasure from simply making others happy with your work, but can't that also lead to pretty homogenous and potentially uninteresting stuff? I also agree that studying another's technique and style can be beneficial, but one is never going to get anywhere until all of these things become second nature and the mind is no longer polluted by them during the process of creation. There comes a time when you simply have to stop looking to others for the way.

    Technique, gadgetry, rules and science are all quantifiable things. IMO it is the nature of many people that are drawn to photography to be done so because of one or more of these things. Trying to apply this to art and aesthetics is crazy however as there truly are no rules there. There can be accepted and acceptable guidelines to be sure, but not going beyond them as with technique and gadgetry is a disservice to yourself as an "artist". This is fine for photo clubs and anyone simply satisfied with making pretty pictures. Who can be faulted for that? This is why there are so many different types of photo enthusiasts.

    As far as teaching "style" or how to inject "meaning" into your work. I doubt that it can be done. A good teacher can point you in the right direction, but just like the saying about leading a horse to water, sometimes it isn't going to happen. It is my experience that you either get "it" or you don't. It is also my experience that just about anyone is capable of getting it. It is finding the way there that is the battle. I have to agree with Cheryl that it is the person and the collective life experience that truly makes the work of those that attract me. It is not the film, paper or developer they use. I mean no disrespect to anyone's work, but I suppose it is for this reason that I am less drawn to the works of "hot" young artists. Aside from the lightning strikes... Dylan, Basquiat, etc., in many cases there just isn't that much life there yet. As a wonderful artist and friend once said to me years ago when I was feeling a lack of accomplishment with my work, "40 may be old for a baseball player, but is childhood for an artist." It makes a lot more sense the older I get.

    Bill

  5. #45

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    U.K.
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,355
    Is it also that women and men tend to regard (massive generalisation coming) the importance of "rules", "technique", "conventions" (we seem to be covering them all) rather differently?

    I can't help thinking if women had been more involved in making the "rules" in the first place, - and let's face it the 'rule of thirds' is only a concept that arose from the works of old masters and designers who were overwhelmingly male - what is deemed acceptable (and successful) and what is not acceptable (and unsuccessful) might be a little different?

    Which is not to say all these "conventions", "rules", and "ideas" don't have a good use...

    Cate

  6. #46

    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Mexico City
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    597
    Images
    122

    Aesthetic Constants

    Quote Originally Posted by MurrayMinchin
    At both the fine art schools and at the college photography program I went to, never once did we discuss 'rules of composition'.

    Murray
    I studied Industrial Design at the Iberoamericana University in Mexico City. The main subject was 'Design', of course, and we never discuss, or been taught on 'rules of composition', we were taught about good or bad compositions, about compositions that work and the ones that doesn't, in a practical way, in our own designs. In the History of Art class we review the so called 'rules' or 'laws of composition' through the time in different cultures, as the ancient Greek 'gold proportion' or the 'frontality law' in old Egypt; and in the Theory of Art class we discussed what the teacher called the 'aesthetics constants' of a culture or a ethnic group, and we find out that the so called 'constants' were the most variable thing in art.

    In short, Rules of Composition or Aesthetic Constants are product of a culture and, I totaly agree with it, are made to be broken
    Jose A. Martinez

  7. #47
    Michel Hardy-Vallée's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Montréal (QC)
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    4,351
    Images
    132
    Quote Originally Posted by Stargazer
    And then came post modernism

    To be fair, I think there's a lot to what you say about writing - but I think writing and photography should not be compared in this way. The 'conventions' (a much better word than 'rules') for story-telling are not the same as the conventions for other kinds of writing (e.g. poetry). I often think a photograph is quite akin to a poem, and much less akin to prose story-telling (though a photograph can of course contain narrative, as can a poem). With a photograph (and a poem) there is less to tie it down, it has the capacity to be more easily and quickly spoilt, (or rescued) and there is less to fall back on when it comes to putting into words quite what it is that is the particular formula for it's success.

    If nothing else, the answer to what makes a successful photograph or poem is less 'wordy', and more heart-felt.

    Cate

    Po-mo schpo-mo! Postmodernism depends on the existence of preexisting methods/conventions/rules/law/blah of writing. You can't have Pynchon without a lot of leg work before him, so it's not like he's working without rules. Au contraire, he goes against the flow of the river, so that the river is still there!

    I disagree about your comparison between photo and poetry. People always think of poems as beautiful heartfelt meaninglessness, especially in the West since the late 19th-early 20th Century, but a large portion of western poetry is narrative to a large extent. The Illiad? Paradise Lost? Elegy written in a country churchyard? Beowulf? Granted, you can point to Donne's poetry as more symbolic, but it is nevertheless highly structured. Rhyme, versification, prosody, sound effects, all that we call poetics is what structures poetry. Shakespeare didn't write poetry like Jackson Pollock paints. Rimbaud was one of the first to tear down the edifice of classical poetics, but he also was a master of it at seventeenth. Yet he came with his own principles: vision, hallucination, impressions. All of which you could call "technique."

    You might argue in return that eastern poetry is different, but here I must retreat into my ignorance, and point to the fact that the most ethereal form (for westerners), the Japanese Haiku, still has a codified number of syllables.

    Back to Wigwam Jones's original comment, he rightly pointed out that there are elements to a photo. Those elements are contignent, the product of a practice, but they exist nevertheless. I'm not a Positivist-type of codifier, but I don't think we can work on intuition alone in working/appreciating a photo, or any work of art for that matter. I'm also sick of people discrediting all sort of structure/technique because they are historically contingent. By the same reasoning, every person is historically contingent, therefore worthy of elimination.

    The final point I'd like to raise is the fact that creating a photo can be a matter of seconds, so that by chance one can subscribe to a very elaborate but beautiful composition. Or not. People who paint "realist" painting take pains to decide which line goes where, and by doing so they force a compositional structure. Photo is a rare art in that composition can be left to chance. Not so with literature, music, sculpture or painting.

    Cartier-Bresson was saying that the rules of composition help us understand why a picture is good, but also that we don't need to engrave the golden square on our ground glass. A trained eye will perceive a harmonious balance faster than it can be explicitely identified. All successful "intuitionists" are probably more aware of form than they'd care to admit...
    Using film since before it was hip.


    "One of the most singular characters of the hyposulphites, is the property their solutions possess of dissolving muriate of silver and retaining it in considerable quantity in permanent solution" — Sir John Frederick William Herschel, "On the Hyposulphurous Acid and its Compounds." The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, Vol. 1 (8 Jan. 1819): 8-29. p. 11

    My APUG Portfolio

  8. #48
    Flotsam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    S.E. New York State
    Posts
    3,221
    Images
    13
    Quote Originally Posted by Wigwam Jones
    Many of us are gratified when we able to provide enjoyment to others.
    I agree with Wiggy on this. All my life I have heard people tell me that the Artist must create only to please himself as if to say that to consider how others might relate to a work somehow soils its artistic purity.

    I have always said that my photography is about communication, not masturbation.
    That is called grain. It is supposed to be there.
    =Neal W.=

  9. #49
    billschwab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Meeshagin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,749
    Images
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by mhv
    The final point I'd like to raise is the fact that creating a photo can be a matter of seconds, so that by chance one can subscribe to a very elaborate but beautiful composition. Or not. People who paint "realist" painting take pains to decide which line goes where, and by doing so they force a compositional structure. Photo is a rare art in that composition can be left to chance. Not so with literature, music, sculpture or painting.
    To say that because one is a photographer they either choose a composition or not and cannot "force" a compositional structure is oversimplification at best.

    B.

  10. #50
    billschwab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Meeshagin
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    3,749
    Images
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by Flotsam
    I have always said that my photography is about communication, not masturbation.
    As long as you have something to say. If you don't, it speaks louder than your image.

    B.



 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin